Slashdot Mirror


Xbox Live Pricing To Go Up To $60 Per Year

donniebaseball23 writes "Microsoft has raised the annual price of Xbox Live Gold to $60, which is a price hike of $10. The new price goes into effect on November 1, but gamers can lock in the current Xbox Live price by renewing now. EEDAR analyst Jesse Divnich is not surprised by the move, nor does he think it will really have much impact on the Xbox momentum."

199 comments

  1. deh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't even fucking pay 60$ per year for my internet connection...

    1. Re:deh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      And that sir, is why you didn't make FP.

    2. Re:deh. by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      In euroland we pay €60 a year for XBox Live Gold, which amounts to 76 US dollars.

  2. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have the online console gaming market to do so. Most folks won't realize the change and will accept the new price hike. Fortunately for me I don't own any console games; therefore, I am not affected!

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by butalearner · · Score: 1

      I have a PS3, so mine's still free, so ha ha!

      Or at least, it would be, if didn't have to stick with firmware 3.20 to keep OtherOS. :(

  3. Makes Sense by chazchaz101 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, with the price of gold these days...

    1. Re:Makes Sense by rainmouse · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its like they say. Girlfriends are for people who cannot afford Xbox live memberships.

    2. Re:Makes Sense by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      Depends - are we talking real girlfriends, or virtual?

      Because speaking from experience, the former is often enough for you to buy Xbox live membership for your street...lol.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    3. Re:Makes Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aint that the truth

      after ~2 years i'm finally getting to the point where my GF doesnt spend her entire salary along with part of mine anymore.. she actually saves quite a bunch (for the impending new house), now the next step is to set it all up so that we pay equal amounts for the monthly upkeep, so i can finally save up some money for my own pleasure :P

      I could have been alone, living in a nice appartment with a cool car and a fat bankaccount, but this is nicer :)

    4. Re:Makes Sense by mldi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Solution: grow a spine.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    5. Re:Makes Sense by Anomalyx · · Score: 1

      On the contrary. Xbox Live is for people who don't have a girlfriend/wife to lose -- I mean spend -- money on.

      --
      No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
  4. Physics majors cringe by vlm · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    nor does he think it will really have much impact on the Xbox momentum.

    Thats not "momentum", its more like the "acceleration of gravity", 9.8 m/s/s DOWN DOWN DOWN

    http://gamingbolt.com/xbox-360-lifetime-sales-reach-42-million

    "The shipment for the previous 12 months, however, has fallen from 11.2 million units to 10.3 million units, an 8 percent drop."

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Physics majors cringe by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... except that everyone who owns an XBox is a potential customer for XBox live.

      XBox sales don't need to increase or even maintain for the installed base of the system to be increasing.

      In a sense your physics is right but your math, or at least your applied math, is bad.

  5. Lock in at $40 by tzenes · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you interested you can lock in your yearly rate at $40 a year (a $10 discount on the current price and $20 on the increased price) by going to this link:

    http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/pricelock/default.htm

    1. Re:Lock in at $40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can save yourself $60 by not paying MS anything.

    2. Re:Lock in at $40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're not locking into the yearly rate. You're getting the $40 for this year and then the "regular rate" for the next year when auto renewal comes up.

    3. Re:Lock in at $40 by Digicrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Still a good deal though (thxs), even if it's just for a year. Personally, I'm on the fence about renewing now ... for $40 I'll probably renew it, but at $60 it's probable I won't next year.

      Lately, all I've used my M$ Xbox Live for is Netflix and very rarely for games. The Xbox is the fastest/most convenient way of watching Netflix ... but if the price goes up and I don't find myself playing Live games any more over the next few months, it'll be time to drop it in favor of just watching it through the PC.

      Of course, then I'll need to buy myself that silly DisplayPort adapter so I can output to the TV and both monitors at the same time from the PC instead of having to choose 2 of 3 screens already connected via the other ports, but that's another story/rant...

    4. Re:Lock in at $40 by hedwards · · Score: 0

      Personally, I've saved myself all the money and am no longer paying MS anything. I think the disgusting abuses of market position are really enough. For instance that whole we're going to only deal with points, but you can only buy the sum of points that we want to sell you is complete bullshit. Best save all the money and not buy anything from them at all.

    5. Re:Lock in at $40 by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Can't I buy that to lock in this year - And go to HMV and buy like ten $40 Gold Live cards, for the next ten years? Or will those no cards longer be valid after November 1, and if so do I get refunded?

    6. Re:Lock in at $40 by yotto · · Score: 2

      Funny, I'm in almost the same boat and I don't mind at all. Granted, $60 means that it'll likely be $50 from Amazon (It's now $40 on Amazon, as opposed to $50 from Microsoft), but still $60 is $5/month. That's a single beer in a bar, once a month. For the (very little) I get out of Xbox Live Gold, I think $5 a month is worth it.

    7. Re:Lock in at $40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can add the 10 cards at once the day you get em it would just add to your subscription time

    8. Re:Lock in at $40 by Jeslijar · · Score: 1

      The only problem I see with this is the fact that xbox live gold cards have gone on sale for 30$ multiple times per month this year through dell or amazon. Why bother locking in at 40 when I could just buy a few at 30 and be set for the forseeable future of xbox360 (and the next generation xbox)

      Granted, the price hike might put an end to this... but I will be surprised if they will be very hard to find for 40 or less.

    9. Re:Lock in at $40 by ArundelCastle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why it's better to pick up a few 12 month cards on sale between now and November, save a few bucks, and choose to use them or resell them as you wish. I've seen posts where people have Gold memberships paid up to 2013, so likely you can use multiple codes now if you don't want to risk losing the cards.

      And an increase of $0.84 a month really counts for a greed tag? Really /.? Would you rather go back to paying the same $50 for the features LIVE had in 2002? Not having a price increase for 8 years seems like a good deal to me. Think about what they can do in the next 8 years now that they don't have the old system weighing it down.

      If you're about to say that it took 8 years for them to add enough features to be worth $50, I will kick you in the shins. You don't get to play in our fort.

    10. Re:Lock in at $40 by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Wow! You're paying twice for the Netflix account? In order to use the Netflix feature on the XBox, the user needs the Live! account? I'm glad I've got the Wii (even if it did come out months after the XBox or Playstation versions).

    11. Re:Lock in at $40 by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      Firstly, the Wii version can't accept an HD stream (since the Wii doesn't support HD), which is not a point in it's favor. Secondly, you're not being gouged twice for the service -- you can still stream video on any other device, so the service is still there. Thirdly, as the majority of Xbox 360 users have a gold account anyway (you cannot play online multiplayer without gold unless you're playing Final Fantasy XI), which makes it a non-issue for them anyway.

      We could easily get into a debate on if Xbox Live Gold should cost anything in the first place, but to say that people are being charged extra for streaming Netflix is flat out incorrect.

    12. Re:Lock in at $40 by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      One other issue no one is mentioning is that the Xbox live Gold price has stayed static for 10 years now.

      The increase is negligible when applied to a year(less than 1$/month), is not likely to increase any time soon after that either.

      In perspective, this is boring and barely worth reporting, except for the Sony and Nintendo fanboys who cream their pants bashing Microsoft.

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    13. Re:Lock in at $40 by anguirus.x · · Score: 1

      It's only a good deal if you're dead certain about having Xbox Live for the next 2 years. This is essentially just an agreement between you and Microsoft where they agree to let you out of the price hike for one year if you agree to purchase their service again in a year. That's all.

  6. wow by nomadic · · Score: 2

    This is probably the least outrageous thing I've read on slashdot in a while.

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since launching Xbox LIVE in 2002 we have continually added more content and entertainment experiences for our members, while keeping the price the same.

      Let me translate that for you:

      Since launching Xbox LIVE in 2002 we have continually added more content and entertainment experiences for our members [that we charge you for and make a profit off of], while keeping the price the same [for the base service. We'll continue charging the same for premium content].

      Still lacking outrage?

    2. Re:wow by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      They didn't add content and experience. They deigned to allow publishers to add content and experiences while charging them significantly more per unit than Sony and Nintendo. The only feature Xbox LIVE offers for free inside the walled garden is multiplayer gaming... the task that requires the -least- effort on the part of their servers (spend five seconds matchmaking,then get out of the way). The other services they've offered "while keeping the price the same"? Netflix ( costs extra, not actually Microsoft's content ), movie rentals ( costs extra, not Microsoft's content ), and demos ( A) should be free, by definition, B) Not really Microsoft's content, C) I think they might even charge publishers per demo download, but don't hold me to that, D) they're goddamn commercials. )

      There must have been an increase in the cost of fuel ( for the trucks that drive through the tubes ), because I have a hard time believing they've had to throw significantly more resources into the "doing jack shit and taking a week to respond to people doing real work" department.

      But hey, they realized they can't actually charge 150 dollars for Kinect and not attach a free game to it. Thank you, everyone who didn't pre-order it ( which I assume is absolutely everyone ). Now we can duck girders on a moving platform for less than the cost of an entire new Arcade bundle.

      /vent

    3. Re:wow by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      They didn't add content and experience.

      An entire new UI, Avatars, the recently canceled game show, and there is a steady stream of content that comes to the Xbox Live platform.

      Providing the platform is not free. MS has to run the datacenters that all of the content is served off of, and has to maintain teams of people to support the infrastructure, from the technology side of it to the more mundane stuff like enforcing the terms of service.

      Online services do not appear out of the ether, someone has to build, improve, and support them.

    4. Re:wow by Moridin42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      New UI and Avatars .. available to people who don't pay for Gold.

      Paying gets you multiplayer, access to Hulu Plus (if you pay for that and are in the US), Netflix (if you pay for that), Sky TV (if you pay for that and are in the UK), and similar services in Portugal or Australia.

      So, really, what you pay for is multiplayer.. that they don't even host. They do the matchmaking and get out of the way.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    5. Re:wow by IRWolfie- · · Score: 1

      An increase every so often because of inflation would be expected, but anyway If they can increase the price and demand doesn't decrease significantly, what business wouldn't increase the price? After all they are a business and do have obligations to make profit for their shareholders

    6. Re:wow by IRWolfie- · · Score: 1

      I should add that I mean they don't need to add services to increase the price

    7. Re:wow by nomadic · · Score: 1

      So, really, what you pay for is multiplayer.. that they don't even host. They do the matchmaking and get out of the way.

      Must be why they only charge a paltry $5 a month.

    8. Re:wow by Whyte+Panther · · Score: 1

      Well, apart from multiplayer, you do get weekly sales (although they only occasionally intersect with your interests), and demo access one week earlier than non-gold users. And there was 1 vs 100 while that was around which was quite fun (but disappointing that it's not being renewed) Not saying it's an amazing deal or anything, but there is a bit more than the multiplayer.

    9. Re:wow by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      At $5/month from every Gold subscriber, they should be hosting every match. If all they're going to do is matchmaking and advertising, they can do that at no cost to the end user.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    10. Re:wow by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      You are also paying for them to host all the marketplace content. You know how every Xbox Live game has a demo? Those costs money to host.

      All those extras (themes, backgrounds, promo vids) which can be downloaded through Xbox Live? Those cost money to host.

      Policing multiplayer games? That costs money.

      Also the multiplayer match making servers and ranking servers do cost money to host. The servers that push patches out to players cost money to host. Heck just testing those patches costs money.

      Now obviously some of the content listed above is accessible to everyone, and in the case of some things, such as demos for highly anticipated games, content is made available earlier to Gold members, but the fact remains that all of the above involve ongoing recurring costs.

    11. Re:wow by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I want the OLD UI back. The new one sucks donkey balls. At least the old one kept the ads segregated to the page where you were buying stuff anyhow. I absolutely LOATHE turning on my 360, because I know it comes up with a wall full of ads. I paid for the damned thing, it didn't have quite that level of advertisement when I bought it, and the ads bring nothing but pain to the experience. And Avatars suck.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    12. Re:wow by Spatial · · Score: 1

      According to my calculator, that is DIVBYZERO times more than their competitors!

    13. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed! I want my donatello ninja turtle icon back!!!

      Also the old fast response GUI, the new one feels more sluggish (And I only had 2 games I played, both 360 exclusives, and only on my friend's xbox :D) Those were Forza 2 and Import Tuner Challenge, Both of which while having Live Capabilities are not usually played that way.

    14. Re:wow by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An increase every so often because of inflation would be expected

      20% inflation? In an industry where processing AND bandwidth AND storage gets cheaper by the day?
      And most of the labour is continually outsourced to where ever it is cheapest?
      And the incremental cost of adding users benefits from economies of scale?

      Realistically the costs could well be going down, and profitability going up.

      They are raising the price because they can.

    15. Re:wow by initialE · · Score: 1

      My area doesn't get Hulu, Netflix or Sky TV. Shouldn't I qualify for a discount then?

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    16. Re:wow by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      You have an odd way of viewing things. You pay for them to host Marketplace content? Whaaaat? Marketplace content is either advertising (trailers, demos) or content you pay for. And you don't have to be a Gold subscriber to get the privilege of paying for that content. I know.. its a shock. They want you to buy things even if you don't buy Gold. Who'd have thought.

      Its also funny how other consoles, and PC systems, have access to that sort of stuff, and multiplayer policing, and matchmaking, and rankings ... at no further cost to the end user.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    17. Re:wow by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      You pay for them to host Marketplace content?

      You do though! There is a reason the PS3 doesn't have anywhere near the same number of demos available for download that Xbox does. Sony has traditionally made publishers pay to host their demos on Sony's servers (and IIRC it might even have been pay-per-download of the files), whereas Microsoft offers publishers free hosting for demos.

      Its also funny how other consoles, and PC systems, have access to that sort of stuff, and multiplayer policing, and matchmaking, and rankings ... at no further cost to the end user.

      Actually you will find that free PC multiplayer doesn't really have policing. Sure if someone gets enough complaints sent in about them on Steam they might get banned, but that is hardly the same as hiring people to go from game to game spotting asshats and cheaters.

      Also look at the number of PC multiplayer match making systems that have gone bankrupt. Steam is, AFAIK, the only large one left that doesn't have any fees, (outside of whatever EA may be doing), but its revenue source is rather obvious.

    18. Re:wow by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Personally, I really like 90% of the ads. The non-gaming ads annoy me, but the game ads are typically for stuff that I want to know about. Many times I turn on my Xbox, see an ad for some game I have been looking forward to, and say to myself "awesome, its out!"

      I'm a gamer. I don't count showing me what new games are available as really being advertising at all.

      Ads for fast food products are annoying though. Actually I find ads for anything not strictly game related to be annoying, I am on my Xbox to play games, just so long as you are showing me gaming related products, its all good.

    19. Re:wow by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      According to my calculator, that is DIVBYZERO times more than their competitors!

      Their competitors also do not provide matchmaking of any sort, so MS also provides UNDEF more multiplayer services in that arena. That makes the price increase worth it, right?

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    20. Re:wow by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      So they are raising the cost because they can, but it took them 10 years to do this? Your logic is faulty, but I doubt you care about being correct.
      Keep spouting!

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    21. Re:wow by vux984 · · Score: 1

      So they are raising the cost because they can, but it took them 10 years to do this?

      The unspoken assumption is that 'can' means that most people will pay the new price without much complaint, they will lose few customers over it, and it will be a net gain.

      Otherwise they could have raised it to a billion dollars 3 days after launching the service... but only an idiot would attempt to interpret my use of 'can' in such a manner.

      My argument however is devoid of any connection to cost.

      Your logic is faulty

      There is nothing faulty about it.

      My argument boils down to:

      1 They want more money.
      2 They felt that if they raised it to $60 most subscribers would just suck it up without complaint.
      3 Therefore they raised it.

      You'll note that the unit cost of service doesn't really factor in. The unstated assumption is that its not mentioned because it doesn't matter. I expect the economies of scale plus advances in technology (performance gains per doller, bandwidth per dollar, etc) more than offset any increases in costs due to inflation.

  7. Boo by timeOday · · Score: 1

    My only online play is for one hour per week with my brother in another state. It's a bad deal for me, even at current rates. Why this even requires a paid subscription is a mystery to me, older games could "direct link" to a specific IP without paying anybody.

    1. Re:Boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they don't make money off of "direct link". Microsoft wants to nickel and dime you as much as they can.

    2. Re:Boo by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      $10 divided by the 52 hours you spend talking to your brother on Xbox Live == $0.19 an hour extra you are paying. How much is a long distance phone plan?

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    3. Re:Boo by cjb658 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hmm, the same company that produced Bill Gates somehow isn't making enough money, so it needs to raise its prices?

    4. Re:Boo by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      $10 divided by the 52 hours you spend talking to your brother on Xbox Live == $0.19 an hour extra you are paying. How much is a long distance phone plan?

      If he's anything like the average Xbox player, he probably has a cell phone and doesn't pay anything extra for long distance. Depending on when that hour is, it's likely a call made at that time would not even consume his monthly allotment of minutes.

    5. Re:Boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much is a voip plan on the computer or phone.
      What does it cost microsoft when you play thier games that requires that host the server yourself.
      I could accept a minimum free but even when you pay for the subscription everything but playing online still costs money. And playing online still means the subscribers have to host the session thenself on their crappy dsl lines.

    6. Re:Boo by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      $10 divided by the 52 hours you spend talking to your brother on Xbox Live == $0.19 an hour extra you are paying. How much is a long distance phone plan?

      Considering Xbox live requires an internet connection anyway, how about using any of a gazillion free voice chat programs instead and buying your brother a couple beers the next time he's in town instead?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    7. Re:Boo by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Actually I have ooma so I don't pay anything for phone, except something like $9/year in taxes.

      My point is, "one size fits all" pricing is a terrible deal for light users like myself, and decreases the value of the XBox 360 relative to other options (like the PS3).

  8. price drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What happened to the rumor a few months ago that XBOX live pricing was dropping? I remember when amazon had the 12+1 month cards for $30 and everyone was saying it's because they're going to drop the price anyway.

    1. Re:price drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turned out not to be true.

  9. They can get away with it by pointing to Sony... by Dusty101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps the timing of this isn't a coincidence, given that Sony recently just launched their own pay-to-play subscription service, PSN Plus? They can claim that this is just the going rate, nowadays...

  10. What? by Xugumad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All those extra features with no ongoing costs, and it's a real pity computer services aren't getting cheaper... No, wait...

    1. Re:What? by Tharsman · · Score: 1, Troll

      How dare Microsoft charge for hosting all those servers... they should do it for free!!! Profit? Expenses? Who care, they should make it free for me!!! If they don't make it free I wont give them my moneyz!!! **although if they make it free i sort of wont give them my money either**

    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare Microsoft charge for hosting all those servers...

      Those servers... are consoles. Which we paid for. Most 360 games are P2P with matchmaking. We host them on our own dime.

      Even the 'content servers' only send you stuff you've paid for - in the case of patches, which the developer has paid for.

      Facts aside, it's hilarious that you feel the need to defend the income of one of the world's most wealthy corporations. I think they'll manage, dumbass.

  11. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by crabbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sony does not charge to play on PSN. PSN+ gives you access to content, everyone can play.

  12. The Price of Lock-In by smist08 · · Score: 1, Troll

    I guess they feel they've gotten enough people locked-in that they can start squeezing the juice out of them. It's why people like to choose an open internet over single vendor proprietary locked in platforms.

  13. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have an xbox and i buy 2-3 games and 4-6 xbl games pr year. And as a casual gamer that fires up the Xbox once to twice pr year, I am not even going to pay the old price. If anything I have been using the Xbox less because my friends dont want to pay for it either with the little spare time they have for gaming.

  14. Greedy by Necreia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Live is a portal that provides the following:
    - Targeted Advertising, which makes Microsoft money
    - Media purchasing avenue (Games, Videos, Add-ons, etc), which makes Microsoft money
    - Multiplayer functionality around games which make Microsoft Money
    - Subscription Fee, which makes Microsoft money

    Only cost that has no/little return is from people who play multilayer constantly and somehow avoids seeing any of the advertisements.

    This is really just a profit grab. I can't really blame them since they don't have to compete with anyone for their existing install base, but it does irk me.

    1. Re:Greedy by Chewbacon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget they phased out Xbox originals support on XBL. So they slashed features and now they're charging more? PSN is looking more appetizing to me now.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    2. Re:Greedy by Moridin42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how many multiplayer games are hosted by one of the player's consoles, rather than a Microsoft server? I haven't played all that many XBL games, admittedly, but only one of them was not hosted on a 360 in the match.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    3. Re:Greedy by j0nb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, seriously. You forgot things like Netflix, which requires a live subscription AND a Netflix subscription.

      At least when they had 1v100 I felt like I was getting a little value add, but now it just seems like a ripoff. I wonder how many people will actually pay $60 though. When the price was $50, the subscription cards periodically went on sale for $35 - $40. I wonder if the sale price will go up too. I think I'm good until around March, which means I'll have to renew to play Gears 3, *groan*

      When live first came out it was a great thing. No one else had that level of seemless match making, game joining, friends list, etc. But now the PC has things like Steam and XFire *for free* so Live just seems like a rip off.

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    4. Re:Greedy by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Let's get one thing Straight: Xbox Live Silver is free. 1 lifetime Silver account comes with your XBox. With that, you get

      - Media purchasing avenue (Games, Videos, Music, Add-ons, Themes, etc)
      - Chat with friends online and a way to compare achievements easily
      - Some Basic Features, such as free demos, Xbox News updates, Facebook, etc

      With A Gold Membership, the only thing you really pay for is the Multiplayer Functionality. At 60 dollars for 12 months, that's 5 bucks a month. In comparison, lets say going to the movies costs you 10 dollars and lasts 2 hours. In order to be more ripped off by X-Box Live than you do going to the movie theatre once a month, you have to use live for 1 hour or less every 2 months.

    5. Re:Greedy by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      I can't really blame them since they don't have to compete with anyone for their existing install base,

      Are you kidding? PC gaming, Steam, PSN and even the Wii are all free to play online, not to mention handhelds. In effect, even their own Xbox offline play titles are competing against the $60 play online tax.

      The Live subscription fee might have made sense in 2003 when online multiplayer was still a novel feature for most players, but as the years go by its becoming more and more difficult to justify paying more for a service everyone else is giving away for free. Indeed, if it weren't for the 30ms ping limits, the XLink Kai crowd would be out-competing MS on their own console. And frankly, the blatant commercialisation of the service even after payment simply adds insult to injury. I'm unable to see the justification for _any_ multiplayer fee, let alone an increase in one as expensive as a Gold account.

      The single biggest problem with the Xbox has always been Microsoft's backwards attitude to online play, and increasing this fee in these tougher times is going a step too far in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if this move precipitated a sharp decline in Live subscriptions. It's not a good time to release a multiplayer title on the Xbox right now.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:Greedy by MooseMuffin · · Score: 1

      In the same vein they also have absurd markups on their hard drives. Considering all you can put on the drives is shit you buy from them, you'd think they'd be eager to give them away.

    7. Re:Greedy by flynt · · Score: 1

      Well, it's $5 a month. Lots of people spend about that at Starbucks every *day* of the week, so I don't it's really a show-stopper price...

    8. Re:Greedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thats $5 a month more than everyone else.

      PSN free
      Wii free
      PC free

      Xbox... whoops M$ ripoff gouging here we come... Mind you it took long enough to make silver the default free offering.

    9. Re:Greedy by kcitren · · Score: 1

      The key thing the Gold membership give me is Netflix to the XBox. That's the only reason I have the Gold subscription. Yes, I know I can use another player that has no monthly/yearly fee [I have a Roku in another room. Great device], but I'd rather not have to add yet another device to the system.

    10. Re:Greedy by demonbug · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just wait, the next rash of games on PSN and they will start requiring a Plus membership in order to play online. Sony arbitrarily yanked OtherOS, I don't put a whole lot of stock in their assurances that they would never, ever, pinky-swear-we-wouldn't, require a plus membership for playing online.

      For some reason I get the feeling this is going to crop up around the time I go to buy the next Gran Turismo (though I'm really not all that interested in playing it multiplayer anyway, so whatever).

    11. Re:Greedy by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Why compare it with something unrelated (going to the movies) when you can compare it to the competition. Neither Sony, Nintendo or PC games make you pay to play online.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    12. Re:Greedy by Cylix · · Score: 1

      I can routinely find cards online for 35$ so I don't know if it is a sale.

      Though I might buy a few just in case the price fluctuates a bit too much.

      That said the value add is mostly worth the purchase cost when compared to something such as Sony's current offering.

      I have always scratched my head at why Microsoft attempts to limit it's own audience. While I have no figures I would assume there is a healthy number of users who are happy to purchase DLC, avatar bling and movies. I know I have purchased a few small games in the past year alone.

      In any event, as long as the market will hold they will try to squeeze every penny.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    13. Re:Greedy by Montezumaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are missing the point completely. With the PS3, customers get to play the multiplayer portion of the games they own(which, incidentally, we paid $60 for the single and multiplayer portion) for free. It does not cost $50 or $60 USD to do that with a PS3.

      Microsoft charges customers $60 per game, then forces customer to pay another $50(about to be $60) per year to play a portion of the game that was already paid for. It would be like a customer purchasing a movie on DVD or Blu-ray, then having to pay a yearly fee to watch the extra features...except that multiplayer on most games (that have multiplayer) is one of the main selling points(MW2, Halo, etc).

      Microsoft adds all of the functionality, then acts like it is something everyone has been asking for. The fact is that I never asked for it, and I am sure most people did not ask for it either. While Microsoft acts like it is costing them money to provide these features, I am sure Microsoft is generating income through advertisements that these "features" provide.

      I do not care about ESPN 3, or Facebook, or any of that other shit; I just want to play the multiplayer portion of the games I own and forget the rest. Hell, a lot of it is just paywall-linked content(purchasing movies, having a subscription of Netflix, and other shit). There is not any added value to Xbox Live Gold when you break it down. This is all just Microsoft fucking over customers and making a killing from it.

      As such, I have canceled my Xbox Live Gold account.

    14. Re:Greedy by Raenex · · Score: 1

      This is really just a profit grab. I can't really blame them since they don't have to compete with anyone for their existing install base, but it does irk me.

      Not totally true. I switched from a 360 and bought a PS3. I have an original 360 model which is collecting dust now. What tipped me over was that if I wanted a bigger hard drive and HDMI, I would have had to pay Microsoft's exorbitant markup. The 360 was also a noisy beast. The PS3 was well designed from day one, with free multiplayer, blu-ray, commodity hard drives, and Bluetooth. When the Slim came out for $300, I switched.

    15. Re:Greedy by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Don't forget they phased out Xbox originals support on XBL. So they slashed features and now they're charging more? PSN is looking more appetizing to me now.

      They slashed support for maybe a couple of thousand users (the vast majority of whom were playing Halo 2) so they could supply the millions more users with features people have wanted. If you want, Halo 2 PC still plays via Games for Windows Live - the same Live network and linked to your Xbox Live account. But the Xbox was holding back Xbox Live and features. Apparently some people wanted more than 100 friends and the like, which is not supportable on the old Xbox.

      And Sony's not much better - they phased out OtherOS, something they've criticized their competitors as lacking and advertised heavily at E3 and online. And with Playstation Plus, who knows what else they're gonna restrict.

      Of course, though, who's idiotic enough to pay full price? I buy Xbox Live membership cards on sale, as with points cards on sale. You can find them 10% off easily enough (Dell probably has them on a weekly special). But what I do is wait for those 25%+ off deals which happen a few times a year and buy it then. Save money and all that jazz. And the points cards tend to go on sale frequently enough - hell, the Sony ones never go on sale because retailers aren't idiotic enough to mark down a $50 gift card (like they don't mark down iTunes and other gift cards). But Microsoft ones tend to, especially with the vague exchange rate used.

      I think I still have 2 or 3 year's worth of xbox live membership cards yet to be redeemed. And lots of points. Get 'em on sale - you don't hav eto use them immediately, or if you do, it activates at the end of the current membership so it's not like you can't buy 10 for the next 10 year's worth.

    16. Re:Greedy by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I wonder how many people will actually pay $60 though.

      Not me. I don't play enough to warrant $60/year... I have a bunch of short duration cards, and just pop one of those off when I get a new 360-exclusive that I want to play online with friends.

      Not paying for Plus, either, and I buy about 3x as many PS3 games than 360 games, due to the above reason.

      I just don't see Gold being worth any money at all, to be perfectly frank. The digital downloads I buy should be enough to support their infrastructure, ala what Sony does.

    17. Re:Greedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They haven't phased out XBox originals support on XBL, they just stopped porting more games over. These are all still playable:

      http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm

      Also, they have XBox originals for sale if you don't own them as downloadable games too.

      Sony on the other hand, well, yes, they have in fact slashed backwards compatibility by removing the required hardware from all but the early US release consoles. They also slashed Linux support.

      If your concern is slashing features and charging more, then looking to Sony is quite ignorant- they also are pushing pay subscription service too now after all. Nintendo is the only one that hasn't increased prices and slashed features.

      But hey, you attacked Microsoft, so enjoy being modded up regardless of being so hypocritical and wrong.

    18. Re:Greedy by Inda · · Score: 1

      Me and the family enjoyed 1vs100. Getting into the 'hundred' was doubly exiting when we won some points.

      Why did they take it offline? Why, if they need this extra $10 so much, didn't they start offering it for 600 points?

      I know they were network testing but surely, with the thousands of players online playing, it was a money-maker?

      Oh, and back ontopic, no one with any sense pays the full price for Live. eBay is your friend.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    19. Re:Greedy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have Netflix and a 360 and would like to have Gold so I can watch Netflix, but I told myself I would buy it if they lowered the price. Microsoft just failed big-time, because not only will they lose some customers (no matter how numerous, or not) they are also missing the chance to rope in a large number of customers who were considering Gold but will never, ever pay them so much for a matching service on a console that already wastes my bandwidth with adverts.

      My next console machine will apparently be none. I'm going to have to go into another cycle of retro gaming (AKA the kids buying games for their consoles at the store wonder where my walker is when I buy games for mine) and PC gaming, ie FPSes.

      Microsoft is raising prices and annoyance. Sony is pure evil. Nintendo is boring. I've owned all their consoles except the PS3 and indeed bought most of them new. Looks like it's time to stop.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Greedy by theaceoffire · · Score: 1

      Yet the PS3 still has a free (crappy) browser (with flash) while the 360 doesn't.

      The PS3 can take any image and turn it into wallpaper while the 360 can't. (Gotta pinch that penny!)

      The PS3 can use any external hard drive, can use any laptop hard drive internally, can use any keyboard, any camera, any printer, as well as letting you backup to external thumb drives / hard drives, etc. 360 Charges you massive money while refusing competition.

      And most importantly, the PS3 only took away the Linux OS after someone claimed to have hacked it, allowing anyone to steal $60 games and blu-ray on their console that they already sell for a loss, the same thing that helped kill the PSP.
      The 360 and Wii already have draconian restrictions to keep you from doing this (Can't use external for games, heavy drm on both system and profile, etc).

      It wasn't until hackers threatened Sony directly that we lost the virtual machine, and even this was an *OPTIONAL* update, only required if you wished to use future PS3 features.

      I know you are trying to build some type of evil Sony gonna kill our kid scenario, but out of everyone on the ball field they offer the most freedom.

      True one day they may join the competition in these penny pinching games, but in that mean time why not enjoy the free online demos, browser, and online play?

      --
      I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
    21. Re:Greedy by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      You CAN store disc games on any external drive on the 360 now. I have done it with red dead redemption. Just sayin.

      --
      Good-bye
  15. Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are only so many people that want game consoles. The idea that their sales will go up and up forever is silly. Never happened in the past. They sell a lot when they come out, maybe even at an increasing rate as they drop in price and become popular, however they then decline as they age and most people who want one own one.

    Also the real money in consoles is not made on the hardware, it is on the software. The hardware is sold for a fairly minimal profit at best, and sometimes sold for a loss (the 360 was sold at a loss when it launched). The money is made in the games and services. You have to pay a per copy sold licensing fee to release a game on a console. So you make real money in selling lots of games people want, and on having services (like Xbox live) they pay for.

    Of course you do need console owners for that, so console sales aren't irrelevant, but if you sell tens of millions of consoles and your sales ramp off, that's fine, so long as people buy stuff for them.

    1. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by stagg · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are only so many people that want game consoles. The idea that their sales will go up and up forever is silly.

      Although they did try to address this with a 50%+ failure rate in the first year...

    2. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by fermion · · Score: 1

      Another issues is that a game console ages, the actual number of active users is likely to decrease. This, along with the hike in price, means that number of subscribers will decrease. However, single there is like a significant marginal costs to XBox live(if there was not there would no incentive to increase the price-yes the argument is a little circular), one could have a significant drop in subscribers and still have an increase in profits.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The original Xbox was sold at a loss of $23 per unit. The Xbox 360 was sold at a loss of $71 per unit.

      The PS2 was sold at a loss of $189 per unit.
      The PS3 was orignally sold at a loss of $250 per unit.

      Sony has never charged for online gaming.
      Microsoft has always charged for online gaming.

      The money has always, for every system, been in software sales, until the wii came out.

    4. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Which is why despite the FOSS guys having a shitfit killing the OtherOS on PS3 was a smart move. As you pointed out its the software, not the hardware, where the money is made. Those buying a dozen PS3s for OtherOS were using it to do simulations, not play the latest AAA title. since Sony is losing money on each unit having the OtherOS was a money sink and encouraging customers that would never buy games. Of course if Sony offered OtherOS units for $1000 to make up for the fact that users didn't buy games they;d probably get screamed at for gouging, so either way they were screwed.

      As for TFA, MSFT now has control of the living room, a stated purpose for the Xbox, it only makes sense they are gonna raise the price to help wipe out the debt from the RRoD and earlier Xbox. I know plenty of guys hooked on XBL and they will happily hand them that extra $10 without blinking. To me the bigger question will be now that they have lowered the production cost whether they will lower the price come Xmas shopping time to really stick it to Sony or not. As I'm sure we all know Sony is bleeding cash on every sale and can't afford to match another price drop. If Gates was there I'm sure the answer would be yes, as crushing competition was one of his favorite past times. Ballmer? He is so busy trying to be Jobs (I STILL think the Gates Borg should be replaced by a Ballmer with his tongue out in a Jester hat wearing an "I Heart Apple!" T-shirt to reflect the new management) I don't know whether he is paying attention to the x360 much ATM.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Those systems were already made. They weren't making Sony any money in warehouses or sitting on store shelves.

    6. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      GameCube sold for a profit as well.

    7. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, I guess this is just a WHOOSH kind of day! The whole point is that those systems were actually worth more to Sony sitting on a shelf or in a warehouse than sold to researchers, because at least with the shelf or warehouse there is the potential to sell it to a gamer whereas the researchers are a guaranteed loss of revenue for Sony.

      Its really very simple GrumblyStuff...Sony sells you a piece of kit that cost them $600 for $400 or less in the hope you'll buy enough games for it for them to make a healthy profit. If you buy a half dozen PS3s to use for a HPC then they have lost $1200 selling to you which they will never make up, because you have no desire to use those 6 machines to play CoD or any other AAA titles. So in this case I'm afraid you're 100% wrong as the unit is definitely worth more to Sony on a shelf than in the hands of a researcher. I personally wouldn't be surprised if Sony lost several million selling PS3s that are now used for research.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GameCube sold?

    9. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      You must not have attended college 1999-2004 where every dorm room, common area or frat house had one and was playing Super Smash Brothers near 24/7

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    10. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Partly correct, but still not quite right.

      The figures you quote for the profit/loss on a console sale are based on launch prices. Component prices fall over time (generally faster than console prices fall) and in general a console will edge back into profit on each unit sold somewhere around the middle of its cycle. I believe both the PS3 and 360 now generally sell at a profit (albeit not much of one).

      But yes, the money is in games sales, rather than in system sales. The reason why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games, even with functionally identical cross-platform games? On the console game, there's a fairly large wodge of cash that goes straight back to the console manufacturer. This doesn't just apply to first-party games. If you want to release a game for a console, you pay your share to the manufacturer (another reason why console developers don't encourage homebrew, outside of controller marketplaces like the indie section of Xbox Live).

      At this stage of the console cycle, the manufacturers should, in theory, be raking in the cash. They've got their consoles out there and they probably don't need to be doing serious R&D on the next generation yet (there seems to be a consensus that this generation will spend longer at the top of the tree than the 5 years that previous generations have been allowed). They shouldn't be having to worry about producing so many console units, as sales will most likely be past their peak, and they can just sit back and let the cash flow in from all of those third party games that they don't even have to invest much in the way of cash into (beyond certification).

      In reality, it isn't actually working quite this neatly. I don't have the figures for Sony or MS's gaming divisions for this year to hand, but Nintendo posted a record loss for Q2 2010, despite a huge installed base. The weakness of the Wii's third party lineup may well be an aggravating factor in that. An installed base does very little for you, unless the console owners are actually going out and buying games.

    11. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're assuming that sony is still selling at a loss. The loss they took initially is nowhere near the loss they're taking now, which is probably negative at this point.

    12. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by mldi · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why Xbox Live has so much more to offer. You get what you pay for.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    13. Re:Perhaps you've never heard of saturation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's not assuming they're still selling at a loss. He's stating that they did.

      And the researchers DID buy them back when Sony was losing money on them. They don't magically make up the difference now that the hardware costs less now, all monetary transactions have already taken place.

  16. Cost vs Service by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why is Microsoft increasing the price when service is going downhill? Is Xbox live -really- that enjoyable for anyone? In my experience its filled with 12 year old kids who just call you gay the entire match, team-killing assholes, most games have a pretty crappy skill matching system meaning the learning curve is high and older players get frustrated, etc.

    I'm not seeing why Xbox live costs as much as it does now, let alone why there would be a price increase.

    And really, MS shouldn't give Sony a foothold in this area because the PS3 can keep on kicking long after the 360 has been "maxed out"

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Cost vs Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Halo is about to come out. That's why the big push to either get people to up for a year or pay 60/month to play Halo with friends for a few months.

  17. No Ads? by TinBromide · · Score: 1

    So now that they're increasing the cost, they'll allow me to turn off all paid-for-by-ad content, right? Guys? .... guys?

    --
    Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    1. Re:No Ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could understand paying a monthly/annual subscription to play online....

      IF THE DAMN GAMES WEREN'T 60 FUCKING DOLLARS TO START WITH.

      then add adverts all over the place... NO WAY, sorry, I'm out.

      Dear Microsoft:

      You're charging absurd amounts of money for the games, now you raise rates on online services... PICK ONE OR THE OTHER, don't fuck us over using two different orifices, one is plenty and leaves us sore and raw the way it is.

      Joe Gamer
      (Wishing he could sit down comfortably)

    2. Re:No Ads? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      I fucking hate the AD-BOX 360. :) Everytime I turn it on, advertisements. The ads come up before you can even switch menu to go to your account, or games...

      Microsoft may have a decent online platform for a console... but they killed it for me, and I went back to PC gaming where I can play a game with out a cocaine addict screaming "yeah nigga.. yeah headshot nigga!?" and then have a 12 year old chime in with the same "Hell yeah head shot niggggggggga"

      I'll take Starcraft 2, Modern Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Team fortress 2, Portal and Portal 2.... Lots of twos..... all on the PC. :)

      and my PS3... rules.

      The 360 has become my SF2 machine. The rest of the system seems to have gone down hill now that Sony has been kicking ass with their big games.

  18. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sony's not putting Netflix behind some bizarre paywall either.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  19. Sony screwing their customers? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    What exact value is XBL Gold giving anyway? It's totally bizarre.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  20. One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by dave562 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The final decision that tipped me toward the PS3 and away from the Xbox360 was the fact that playing online games on the PS3 is free. I hadn't even considered the fact that Microsoft would eventually increase the fee for their service.

    1. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by arkane1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Add in that the Nintendo Wii does the same as the PS3, and this makes the XBox Live price increase ludicrously laughable. I just shake my head and laugh whenever someone asks me why I don't have an XBox after I tell them I don't.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    2. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by partyguerrilla · · Score: 1

      On one hand, the Playstation Network is free for all, which is usually nice. On the other, the servers are maintained by the publishers and they can pull the plug any time, leaving games without the online component. It sucks to pay for Xbox live and it sucks to host the games using your xbox, but in popular games you're pretty much guaranteed to find a match. This is why PC gaming is superior imho.

    3. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by BigSes · · Score: 1

      Not trying to flamebait you, but as a Wii and PS3 owner, the Wii sucks for online multiplayer gaming. Friend codes to do what? Keep rapists away? If they went with the PS3 model of matchmaking and let the risk on the consumer, it would have been great with all of the Wii games out there. Super Smash Bros Melee with PSN would have made it an even bigger hit. Love the system, hate the setup.

    4. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by BigSes · · Score: 1

      To back you up...Tiger Woods 2010 most recently, since the 11 version has been released, 10 no longer offers the high value Play-the-Pros or Weekly online tournaments. If you want the trophy for 5 mill online earnings, the best you can do in a day is win shitty daily tourneys for less than 100k each. Therefore, if you want to platinum, good fucking luck. Dick move, but hey, they own the servers and I don't pay to be on them.

    5. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The only PS3 game that I've played online so far is CoD:MW2. That game seems to put the hosting off on the client. It does not have a true dedicate server feature, but it does allow you to setup a private match. I'm still neutral about dedicated servers. I appreciate the community the arises around a dedicate server. On the other hand, the lack of a dedicated server doesn't bum me out (other than when I really want to play one specific map).

    6. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea man the xbox is a joke mine broke for no reason, sent it to ms factory in Germany to get it fixed ...then a year down the line it breaks again. I just traded all my games in for a ps3 which does not only have free net play but is a better machine all round. Linux and ps3 ftw m$ can stick it ......

    7. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same thought. Unfortunately the games on the PS3 are generally poor and the on-line experience is rudimentary at best.

      Never would have bought an Xbox, regret buying the PS3.

      Stick with PC MMO games (I'm a ddo fanatic). They make console games look like toys for toddlers.

    8. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I think that my son's next console will be a PS3, I'm sick to death of XBox screwing me over for playing online, let alone my total disgust at the lengths that it takes to simply cancel an automatic "renewal" of Xbox Gold. Pack or arseholes !

    9. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psn doesn't even compare to xbox live

    10. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by grumbel · · Score: 1

      the servers are maintained by the publishers and they can pull the plug any time, leaving games without the online component.

      That can happen on XboxLive too. Sega pulled the plug on ChromeHounds and EA is regularly pulling the plug on their sport games and of course the whole Xbox1 live support disappeared.

      Even with the PC things are starting to get more troublesome with more and more developers moving to solutions that require their servers to be involved instead of user hosted stuff.

    11. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the thing that tipped me back towards 360 was 3.2.1

    12. Re:One of the reasons I bought a PS3 by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      Stick with PC MMO games (I'm a ddo fanatic). They make console games look like toys for toddlers.

      That's true. Then again, PC MMO games also makes Microsoft Excel look like toys for toddlers. Heck, even going outside seems simple and fun compared to those soporific behemoths!

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  21. Screw it. by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

    For what I get out of XBL, $60 USD ain't worth it.

    Especially when I can just log into Steam on my PC and play lots of fun games online for free.

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Screw it. by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm not sure who's brain is firing over at MS, but economy in the shitter. Mass unemployment, people using media as a form of escape. And instead of lowering the price and getting more(or return subs), they're increasing the price. Musta hired someone from Canada, or the UK.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  22. $5 a month by Jim+Hall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hate to be the one to defend Microsoft here. $60 may seem like a big number, but do the math: $60 per year is $5 a month. That cost is nothing compared to what you're already paying for Internet or cable TV service.

    1. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's still $5 a month I could spend on something else.

    2. Re:$5 a month by sxeraverx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes. And I'm already paying for internet service. I'm paying for internet service. Online play is internet service. Online play is internet service. I'm already paying the person who provides my internet access to be able to play online. And MS asking my to pay them, too. Next thing you know, game developers will also want their fair share of the profits from online play. Because that's no longer included in the cost of the game. So they'll start charging you. So you're paying $50/month for internet access, $60/year for XBL server access, and another $60/year to unlock multiplayer in a game you've payed for, payed for access to the internet for, and paid for the ability to access the server of. What happened to paying $20-$30 for a game, with multiplayer, with servers, with no monthly fee, except that of your ISP charging for internet access?

      And they were good games, too.

    3. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Next thing you know, game developers will also want their fair share of the profits from online play. Because that's no longer included in the cost of the game. So they'll start charging you.

      Yep. Yay for double, triple, and quadruple-dipping!

      Oh wait, not 'yay', 'boo-urns'.

      http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/05/ea-sports-to-charge-10-to-play-used-games-online.ars

    4. Re:$5 a month by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Turns out that when people wanted Consoles to be a "more equal" platform for online gaming, that meant routing all traffic through proprietary servers.

      That's right, even though Halo 3 was designed with P2P hosting/clients in mind, it still has to run through Microsoft Servers in order to weed out hacking and other malicious activities that people try to pull off with an XBox. What you pay for with that 60/year is that service, the matchmaking, the tracking, the moderators who have to ban people, etc.

      That kind of environment doesn't pay for itself. If you don't like it, the PC market is still alive.

    5. Re:$5 a month by KnightBlade · · Score: 1

      EA has something like this going on. I'm not sure they're doing it, but apparently pre-owned games will need to pay a 10$ fee if they want to play online. http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ea-project-ten-dollars-dlc,news-5797.html

    6. Re:$5 a month by tepples · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know, game developers will also want their fair share of the profits from online play.

      That's not "next"; that's now. See EverQuest, Final Fantasy XI, World of Warcraft, and any other subscription MMO game.

      What happened to paying $20-$30 for a game

      That was the NES lockout chip and related mechanisms to artificially inflate the cost of developing for a dedicated video game console.

      with multiplayer

      That was 350p. In the 1980s, computer gaming moved from 8-bit microcomputers, which had a composite video output, to 16-bit microcomputers such as IBM PC and Macintosh, most of which forwent 240p or 288p SDTV output in favor of a 350-line signal to improve picture detail. So for the next two decades, monitors capable of displaying the 350p to 1024p resolutions of computers tended to be either sized for one person or cost-prohibitive for home use. In any case, even though PCs gained USB ports for easy connection of multiple gamepads in 1998, it wasn't common for PCs to be connected to TVs and used as if they were consoles. This ended in the mid-2000s, when LCD HDTVs capable of displaying resolutions up to 1080p pushed CRT SDTVs out of showrooms.

      And if you're talking about online multiplayer, not just the sort of local multiplayer seen in Bomberman or a fighting game, there are still plenty of free-to-play online PC games.

    7. Re:$5 a month by sxeraverx · · Score: 1

      That kind of environment doesn't pay for itself.

      Shame Blizzard isn't making any money off of SC2.

      SC2 has all those features you listed: running through dedicated servers, matchmaking, tracking, moderators banning people who cheat, etc.

      Shame S2 Games isn't making any money on HoN, either.

      Yes, I realize these are both PC games. Consoles are PCs. Networking them is no different than networking PCs. Game devs making shitty assumptions about the security of consoles compared to PCs is no excuse for exorbitant fees to try to weed out behavior that exposes that. In fact, I think that's called extortion: "Yeah, we'll prevent other people from cheating against you. For a fee."

    8. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... does everyone forget about the PS3 or something?

    9. Re:$5 a month by demonbug · · Score: 1

      That kind of environment doesn't pay for itself. If you don't like it, the PC market is still alive.

      Well, sort of. Except that the same companies that are forcing us to go through centralized admin/anti-cheat servers (and according to you pay for the service) are doing the same in the PC space, minus having to pay for it (so far). Every PC gamer I know was quite content with self-governed, privately-hosted servers where the publisher incurs zero cost for hosting games, but for some reason we are being forced to only play on centralized servers in the newer games.

      I'm sure very soon will be asked to pay for this "service" (that no one asked for) because the poor poor publishers will be whining about how having to host games is bleeding them dry.

      So yes, the PC market is still alive, but every day it seems to be moving closer to being indistinguishable from the console market.

    10. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Number of games in SC2: 1
      Number of games in Xbox: shitloads

      Sorry, what was that again?

    11. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an Xbox and a PS3, and you definitely get what you pay for.

    12. Re:$5 a month by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our UT servers have always been great places to play. Why? We offered the same services you describe the consoles offering, and did it for free, with a happy smile. Got a little server tucked away in a university research lab that a clan member runs, and we police the servers pretty well. It's meant to be a nice, fun, happy place to play games. Douchebags see the door at light speed. Why? There are plenty of non-douchbag players in the world to fill our servers with. And we'd rather it be empty than be filled with douchebags. The end result is that the people who come regularly are fun, polite people to be around. We've made a fair number of friends because of it. While we're competitive, we also like good games. We'll fairly regularly switch from the winning team to the losing team to try to help out. The whole point is that games are meant to be fun for everyone.

      Why the long rant? Because yes, the PC market is still alive. Barely. Every new game I play has a company-run server, and no private or lan server available. And every one of them is filled with douchebags, racists/bigots/homophobes, rage-quitters, and teens who think cussing is the most awesome thing ever invented. It's shocking coming from such an amazing game playing experience for the last ten years or so. Our servers are great. I've not yet found a public server that holds a candle to ours. When your players earn you money, you have a vested interest in enfocing civility as little as possible. When you're like us, and have no financial or logistical or moral reason to tolerate any sort of douchebaggery, your servers are like heaven.

      I'm not going to be playing PC games much longer if I'm not allowed to run my own server, and I'm forced to deal with shitheads all the time. However, I'm not going to be playing console games either, since they have the same problems, except tons more lockdown of the hardware, software, subscription requirements in some cases, etc.

      Take away the ability for the hobbiests to run and police their own servers, and civil gaming is all but dead. I'm not sure how the group of great people I play games with would have ever gotten together if it wasn't for us having a lot of fun on some really quality servers. Now, you have games like League of Legends running "take a picture of you playing a LAN game and having fun and win prizes!!!!!" contests, despite there being no LAN client, and no private servers. Apparently for them, and for most other companies these days, it seems, "LAN party" means, "Bunch of you in a room, on a HARDCORE FUCKING CONNECTION, all playing on our servers. With all the issues with latency and bandwidth and shit you'd have had if you were at home. Doing something that you could have done in your individual houses. Am I the only one that remembers what a LAN party is, and what makes it special?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    13. Re:$5 a month by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      tl; dr edition:

      What the GP said. PC gaming is almost dead for me because of it, and consoles are not a way out.


      Unless you just are wasting time, then read what I wrote above. Otherwise disregard that rambling crap.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    14. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I thought it was to pay for the foul-mouthed 9 year old to remind you what a fag you are.

    15. Re:$5 a month by karnal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, LAN parties... haven't been to one in a long time. My memory is of playing C&C Generals against another team and "strategically" taking out my best friend's bulldozers right quick. I knew he was the only real threat, and by building airplanes early I was so undefended, but once he was off the board... well, we stomped the rest!

      I too like having dedicated servers; my clan used to run one for UT2k4 - was an excellent way to get to know the good players, and an easy way to get rid of the bad. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't realize that in the real world it costs $$ to run one (if you want full access to a single box, 100-150$ a month is not uncommon in a decent data center) - and I would gather that most people from a console perspective cannot "host" a game due to the upload bandwidth restrictions on most USA connections.

      --
      Karnal
    16. Re:$5 a month by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's a huge amount, or that MS doesn't provide something in return, I'm questioning the analysts' assertion that this should be expected because their costs will be going up.

      With hardware becoming both cheaper and more powerful, their costs should have been coming down rapidly over time, and should be a fraction (half, at most) of what they were when XBox Live first launched. Or am I missing costs that aren't going to be hardware related?

    17. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can host Sauerbraten servers with good ping on a $20/month linode (many other vps providers as long as they are geographically near), and have plenty of headroom to host other stuff.

      IMHO arcade coin-ops >> PC fps >> all the rest, so that's one more reason for me to suggest trying stuff like sauerbraten out

    18. Re:$5 a month by grumbel · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the one to defend Microsoft here. $60 may seem like a big number,

      Because it is. $50 or $60 over the lifetime of a console means an additional $300 or more you have to pay, it is basically doubling the price of the console and just because that cost is spread out over a few years doesn't make it go away.

      The real joke of course is that people pay that money in expectation of good service, but yet you still see Sega pulling the plug on Chromehounds or EA pulling it on all their not-current sport games or heck even Microsoft itself pulling it on the whole Xbox1 network.

    19. Re:$5 a month by nsolon · · Score: 1

      5% > nothing

    20. Re:$5 a month by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      It costs a lot less these days. If you're got a home with a good internet connection already, you're pretty much set. The bandwidth needed for a UT2k4 or even a UT3 (game I despise) server isn't all that much. Ours run unnoticed in a research lab at a university. When people are regularly moving around many terabytes of data per day, it's just a blip on the radar. Not that we couldn't run it off someone's 10mbit cable connection, however. It's just more "fair" to have it somewhere where nobody is on a LAN with it.

      C&C Red Alert was one of my first RTS on a LAN. We had 8 computers on a co-ax network in an apartment a couple of friends rented. Aaaah, fun times...t-bars lying around everywhere, and terminators made out of paperclips, bottlecaps and gum.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    21. Re:$5 a month by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. I wanted to play some console games (fairly casual player) and I wanted a good Blu-ray player. I didnt' want Halo and a lifetime $5 month service charge to play a few online games that I can play on PS3 for free.

    22. Re:$5 a month by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought it was to pay for the foul-mouthed 9 year old to remind you what a fag you are.

      My son is 11, you insensitive clod!

    23. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three words: Team Fortress 2. It certainly has some of the issues you mentioned, but the good people far outweigh the jackasses, and most servers (pretty much all of which are public) are good about getting rid of the douches quickly.

    24. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the U.S.. I pay $20 per month for 1.5 Mbps ADSL. I don't pay for cable TV service. $5 per month is a lot of money in comparison. Care to give me 25% of what you make in a month?

    25. Re:$5 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example; Gears of War on the Xbox is hosted by one of the players for every match.

    26. Re:$5 a month by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      When you put it that way, you are the one paying way too much. Maybe not in currency, but I'll take 60 bucks a year to have someone else worry about that shit.

      We all have different priorities, and mine see this as such a minor issue it is laughable.

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    27. Re:$5 a month by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      That's my point - who do you pay $60 to worry about it? Not Xbox Live! In fact, nobody I've ever seen has actually worried about a civil, fun server atmosphere, until they're losing more customers due to the lack of it than they would if they got rid of a lot of people.

      If I could pay $5/month to have servers run well, I would do so. But I can't. All I can do is invest my time, since no corporate-run-server has the financial interest in policing the people paying them. The more heads, the more money they make. They're not going to ban anyone until it costs more money to keep them than to be rid of them. That's not a server environment I want to play in.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  23. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by MaxBooger · · Score: 2, Informative

    PSN Plus is a superset of PSN, mainly related to the PSN online store. With Plus, they offer beta access to some games, store discounts, free copies of older PSN titles as well as other goodies. The core networking of PSN is untouched and remains free.

  24. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by MaxBooger · · Score: 1

    Well, I believe that Sony has stated that firmware access for NetFlix will be a Plus exclusive for a month or so. After that, it will be moved to the free side.

  25. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by hedwards · · Score: 1

    How could they do that? Netflix owns the rights to the content, the only thing that Sony could do is refuse to sign the disc, but at the end of the day, it doesn't cost Sony anything, it's Netflix (Well really Amazon) servers, the customers ISP's bandwidth, the only part that has anything to do with Sony is the PS3, which has already been paid for by the customer.

  26. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ask Microsoft how they can do it. That's exactly what they do. You have to be a gold subscriber in order to use the Netflix app/dashboard/whatever you call it on 360.

  27. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

    Sony may have stated such a thing, but I doubt it. Netflix works without PSN+, and has done so since before PSN+ was rolled out.

    Hulu Plus may or may not be available to free PSN. I don't know, can't check.

    --
    I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
  28. Xbox is dead; long live Xbox 360 by tepples · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... except that everyone who owns an XBox is a potential customer for XBox live.

    By "Xbox" did you mean Xbox 360? Xbox Live service for the original Xbox has ended.

    1. Re:Xbox is dead; long live Xbox 360 by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      Who cares?

      His point is that not everyone who initially bought an Xbox (any generation) immediately purchased an XBox live account.
      So even though they moved less units last year that doesnt necessarily mean they will have less Live subscribers.

      :/

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
  29. If not 360 or Windows, then what? by tepples · · Score: 1
    AC wrote:

    Or you can save yourself $60 by not paying MS anything.

    So if Xbox 360 and Windows PC are out of the question because they are controlled by Microsoft, which platform do you recommend for gaming?

    1. Re:If not 360 or Windows, then what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I live Microsoft is required (by my laws) to provide free support & upgrades for the life of the product.
      Win3/Win95/WinNT/WinXP.. its all the same product.

    2. Re:If not 360 or Windows, then what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC wrote:

      Or you can save yourself $60 by not paying MS anything.

      So if Xbox 360 and Windows PC are out of the question because they are controlled by Microsoft, which platform do you recommend for gaming?

      PS3 possibly?

    3. Re:If not 360 or Windows, then what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... does everyone forget about the PS3 and Wii or something?

    4. Re:If not 360 or Windows, then what? by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

      PLAYSTATION 3 and Wii are good if you only care about major-label games. Most of the indie games that aren't on Apple or HTC handhelds are on Microsoft platforms: the Windows PC and to a lesser extent the Xbox 360. One thing Windows and Xbox 360 have going for them is the diversity that only comes from open development, in the same way that iPhone beat out BREW phones.

    5. Re:If not 360 or Windows, then what? by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      yes, because sony is the yardstick of corporate morallity, with no reputation for being underhanded bastards at all..

      Honestly, both companies are evil and suck, but IMHO sony is way ahead of MS. requiring the removal on functionality you originally bought with the machine...

      Honestly, i dislike microsoft for some things they screwed up with windows (and i personally prefer not using windows), but compared to sony/apple/oracle, they are just the lumbering clumbsy giant of the tech world (and their CEO happens to be straightjacket material). And save for some hardware issues, i think the xbox 360 is an excellent gaming platform.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    6. Re:If not 360 or Windows, then what? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      And save for some hardware issues, i think the xbox 360 is an excellent gaming platform.

      Yeah, and besides some hardware issues, the Fiat is really reliable automobile.

      The guy who designed original cooling system for the 360 thought it was just for a prototype. When he found out they were going to push it out the door with his cooling system so they could make the '05 holiday, he quit in protest. You're talking about a company that knowingly sold a defective product for years. Every single 360 motherboard has the Red Ring of Death. Most of the designs aren't much of an improvement over the 33% failure rate of the original. Maybe the Slim 360 will be, but that's the same thing they've been saying for the last 5 years. How many chances do you want to give them?

      Shoveling defective products on the market is much more offensive to me than removing a feature that nobody really used in the first place. I don't like the dishonesty, the frustation and waste of time when the inevitable happens, and I don't like shelling out my hard-earned money to buy the same thing twice, especially when I know I'm going to have to buy it again.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  30. It has to be.... by BigSes · · Score: 1
    because of PSN beginning to charge for an upper tier service. Granted XBox Live was much more of an advertising package than the free PSN ever was, but, I always felt XBL offered better prices on games and DLC than the free PSN. Let us not forget that many DLC packages were available to XBL before PSN, not to mention some of the really great exclusive content and user created games. I think sometimes things just come with a price. To anyone out there upset, its still just $5 a month, not going to break the bank, and M$ is bound to give something for the added money.

    As a caveat, I'm a happy PS3 fanboy and do not own a Xbox 360, but did own an original Xbox. I won't pay Sony for the "upgraded" PSN service, because standard is great for my needs and the benefits of upgrading don't seem to sell me. I've always been a bit jealous of XBL versus PSN. I do think XBL Gold is a better deal than the upgraded PSN package because of the early DLCs and access to exclusive titles (the new 2D Castlevania anyone)? I'd say if you love it, just drop the extra $1.20 a month.

  31. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by sixfootfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was free for a bit, I had let my Gold membership expire, which gave me a Silver, and Netflix worked for about 2 weeks before they required the Gold memberships. I think this is in poor taste. If I bought the console, pay for a Netflix subscription, and pay to have Internet, why does Microsoft need money for this transaction as well?

  32. You don't get anything for sucking up to MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare Microsoft charge for hosting all those servers... they should do it for free!!! Profit? Expenses? Who care, they should make it free for me!!! If they don't make it free I wont give them my moneyz!!! **although if they make it free i sort of wont give them my money either**

    Why are you apologizing for them?

    Sarah Friar, a Goldman Sachs analyst, estimated that Xbox Live has gross margins of about 65 percent, far better than the margins on physical consoles.

    Gross revenues for Xbox Live topped $1 billion last fiscal year ending July 31 FYI.

  33. The icon needs replacing by Centurix · · Score: 1

    With either a greased up Indian wrestling Ballmer, or a broken chair. I suspect Gates would have had all that gear implanted by now, he's got some spare change.

    --
    Task Mangler
  34. How is Xlink Kai? by whoop · · Score: 1

    Over the years of using DD-WRT, I've seen this thing called Xlink Kai. How well does it work, are there many players to play against? Maybe it's time to fire that up and see what one can get for free.

  35. No one saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am re-posting these comments since they seem to have disappeared from Google. They were posted on Slashdot in the early years of the first Xbox.

    If you think X-Box is about game consoles, you miss the whole point. X-Box is about learning how to control the hardware design as well as the software. Today you can buy Lotus Notes for Windows and Microsoft doesn't make a penny. Worse, you can get Perl or GCC for Windows and write your own code without paying M$ one penny. Not only that, they have to support all that legacy hardware in each Windows release, not to mention that pesky trial over the OS itself. Once Windows is the embedded OS in a Microsoft-controlled hardware product, many good things (for Microsoft) happen:

    • There is no threat from any other OS.
    • There is no cry of "Unfair middleware bundling!"
    • There is no issue of different licenses for different hardware makers, or of rogue hardware makers loading a non-M$ approved desktop.
    • Everyone who writes software for the box has to pay Microsoft a royalty -- guess what this does to the Free Software folks?
    • Microsoft can provide ever-greater improvements just by re-flashing the ROM via your (required) Internet connection (don't have one? sign here for MSN for just $5/month more than you're paying now).
    • Oh, did I mention manditory software subscriptions?
    • Want more storage space? We'll rent you more for a slightly higher subscription (no hardware upgrade needed)

    This this is all a pipe dream? Think nobody will buy this?

    First of all, the article states that MS only makes $5-$10 off each title sold. I'm sure that for MS's own titles, the profit margin is far higher. So perhaps they only need to sell maybe 10 titles per box to break even.

    But of course, they're losing money. They've publicly stated that they plan to lose upwards of $2,000,000,000 before they start making a profit. So how do they plan to do this?

    As the parent mentioned, XBox 2. The goal is to get people comfortable with having a MS product as part of their "entertainment system". Once people are comfortable with that, MS can sell you a $1,000 .Net "Entertainment Server Appliance" or whatever they want to call it, and then you're locked into MS compatibility for not only your computing, but for all your entertainment purchases (which is of course a much bigger market.)

    XBox.Net (online gaming subscriptions.) In this case, the goal is to get people comfortable with sending $10 or $20 a month to Microsoft, more or less automatically without thinking. Then Office subscriptions will eventually seem a lot more palatable.

    So why is Microsoft doing this? Because they can, now that people have let them get a foot in the door.

  36. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

    Actually, this was one of the main reasons for me to choose PS3 over XBOX. I am not a gamer (games are just a bonus), my main use is Blueray movies + Netflix + UPnP player for my music. It was a crucial factor as I was ditching cable for good and had to make sure I get Netflix in place of it.

    A friend of mine has XBOX and wants to ditch cable too, but he can't get Netflix on XBOX without paying and now he might end up paying even more.

  37. $100 a year by greymond · · Score: 1

    I have a feeling XBox Live could increase up to $100 per year and everyone would still do it. Anymore than that and they'd probably start losing a few subscribers.

  38. Lock-in a lie by gamricstone · · Score: 1

    This lock-in business is bullshit. They are offering a special promotion (which they have done before) which offers 1 year of service for a single payment of $40. After the year is up, your subscription renews itself at the "then current annual price after year one". On a side note, for the last 4 months of xbox live I have paid $11. They had a $1 for 1 month promotion, and then a 3 months for half price ($10) promotion. The current price per month is $8, this will be increasing to $10 per month. (unless you purchase a longer subscription)

    --
    The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
  39. dumb move on their part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this $10 hike will do is cause people to re-evaluate whether they want the service at all. This $10 hike could easily turn into a multi-million dollar dive for MS as hundreds of thousands of people start canceling their $50. I've seen many posts here where people are considering it. I have to admit I've been considering it myself. It isn't that $10 more is really that big of a deal. It's more about the fact that I get the same service on the PC for free (I'm using Steam), plus free (not to mention better) downloadable content / mods / map making tools / dedicated servers / admins / voting / etc., and usually lower prices on games (about $10 per game). Charging anything at all for multiplayer gaming is pretty greedy. You can make excuses for them by saying well they have it going thru their VPN to protect us, but keep in mind that isn't to protect us, but to protect the publisher's FROM us. Also, you would be playing in 64 player matches if it weren't for all that encrypted traffic, instead you're stuck with 12 - 16 players normally on xbox live. The only thing MS has done right is the integrated voice. The matchmaking is actually implemented by the game companies themselves, and some of it has (unfortunately) made its way into the PC versions of these games. There's also the fact that every game is auto-aiming for you on the console, if you played against a PC gamer with a mouse you'd get your asses handed to you because you lack actual skill, just saying. I just can't find a reason for me to want to stay on the console, and I've been investing a lot more money into PC games lately and I've been happier for so many different reasons. I could rant more, but there you have it.

  40. Alternative: Family Pack by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    Seems like the Family Pack coming in November is still US$99 for 4 people.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:Alternative: Family Pack by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Wait, you have to pay $60 a year for EACH member in your household?!?!?

    2. Re:Alternative: Family Pack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to pay that for each [i]account[/i] you want to use separately online, even if they're on the same console. I can't find any details on the Family Pack, but I wouldn't be surprised if it comes with a restriction that it applies only to accounts created on the same console, or something similar.

    3. Re:Alternative: Family Pack by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      No, there's no restriction about where the accounts are, only that they all use the same master credit card.

      So yeah, you & your friends can be a "family", so long as you're comfortable with giving them the ability to purchase snazzy avatar hats on your dime.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  41. This is what you do.. by ufpdom · · Score: 1

    Ive been a subscriber to XBL for over 2 years now. When I first joined I didn't or never payed the retail $50 a year. I thought it was crazy. It wasn't until some random sales of kindness came about where 12year+1month cards came out for $30 via Ebay daily deal, buy.com,amazon,you name it. This would happened about every 3-6 months. I scored 2 cards because I figure 2 for almost the price of one. So as of the last sale and mostly through buy.com i scored 3 more cards. So basically I have the next 5 years worth of cards for $30. And I'm very sure that during some black-friday sale somewhere on the internet it will happen again. Stock up and save is what I say.

    --
    There's no Freedom like UFP-dom
  42. Canada barely affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 12 month package for Canadians isn't changing price, so there's no complaints from me :)

    If you pay by the month, well, now you have some incentive to switch to longer term plans.

  43. Re:Linux, once again, shows its advantages by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    open source.... cheat proof due to Linux's enormously superior security model,

    Oh yes, open source is "cheat proof." Just take the source code, and:

    if me (add points)
    if them (success_probability * .7)
    if me (armor x5)
    if them (speed *.88)
    if me (radar_range x 2)
    if them (fuel_consumption * 1.25)

    ...then compile and run "your" copy. Yah. Clearly, open source is the way to go, eh?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  44. Check the 8-year inflation rate by cbhacking · · Score: 5, Informative

    "20% inflation" implies that they raise the cost like this every year. They don't. They raised the price from its 2002 point.

    Inflation figures according to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
    $50 in 2002 = $60.59 in 2010.

    Also, economies of scale don't necessarily apply. For example, moderation of the player base requires a number if people in direct proportion to the player base, and maybe even a little worse - the more players are, not only the more problem people you have but the more people each of them can piss off. That means a geometrically increasing number of complaints as the player base increases.

    Not that I'm not in support of this change; I have a Silver subscription on an Xbox 360 that I got for free, and no intention of purchasing Gold any time soon, so it doesn't really affect me either way. Your post is at best misleading, however.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  45. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even less of a reason for me to get it now. I wouldnt pay previous prices for it, no way in hell Im going to pay more for it.

    I can play games free on my pc and my ps3 so there is no reason why I would pay to play games on my 360.

    I cant believe people do pay for it myself because it nickel and dimes you to death. Say I want to get netflix on my 360 I cant just buy the service I have to buy xbl gold also. Or if I have say left 4 dead 1 and want to download the free content pack for it, I have to pay MS to download it "free" and have to buy xbl to play it online. F that, I have the pc version that was cheaper to buy to begin with by half and I got the content pack actually free through steam and I can play it online for free.

    When xbl first hit I used my free month code when I got a 360 when it came out and hated it. Was 85% annoying kids screaming racist crapand yelling, 10% was adults that act like bastards and trying to piss people off and they all sounded like they were as smart as a hammer. So I never paid for it. Like couple years later I got a free 2 week code in a game so I tried it again and nothing had changed, it was still jam packed with damn idiots.

    Yeah pc and ps3 online players can be assholes also, but atleast Im not paying to deal with them. Let alone paying more than previously to deal with them

  46. Australian Costs by Zarath · · Score: 1

    At the moment, with the discount, it's approximately 65$ per year for xbox live gold. Without the discount it's 80-90$. With this increase, if it goes through directly will push it to 100$+. That's getting to be a bit too expensive. Furthermore, Australians don't get all the premium services that America gets, we don't have netflix, or anything like that. We have a download movie service which offers few movies, for far too much. Ultimately this is starting to make xbox live gold account not look worth it to me, and making the PS3 more appealing. I could understand the increase if there were services costing them money, but from a standpoint outside of America it just seems like more money grabbing.

    1. Re:Australian Costs by gamricstone · · Score: 1

      It seems like that from my standpoint inside America. If they can offer a family plan at $25 per person/year, or half the current yearly rate, then there is no reason to increase the price other than they want more money.

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
  47. netflix what? by zuralin · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with netflix.. According to the email I got they are adding:

    -With ESPN on Xbox LIVE, you can stream and watch over 3,500 live and on-demand sporting events plus highlights.*
    -With Hulu Plus on Xbox LIVE you will be able to enjoy a customized Hulu Plus experience that will include Kinect navigation and Xbox LIVE Parties*

    Both would be pretty good reasons to ditch my fios tv...

    1. Re:netflix what? by theantipop · · Score: 1

      Except you only get ESPN3 if your ISP has bought in to the service, and Hulu+ if you pay monthly for it.

  48. I don't mind paying something, but I do mind ads by Artifex · · Score: 1

    I don't mind so much paying for "Gold level." What I do mind, however, is that they still feel the need to stick all kinds of ads in the service. In fact, they now have motion/sound ads that start when you scroll to the line it's on. At this point, if it wasn't for my family using it to stream Netflix, I'd probably just let it lapse.

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
  49. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by jseale · · Score: 1

    But by that same token, they don't let you hack their stuff anymore. :(

  50. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by Clovis42 · · Score: 1

    I think he meant that you will be able to use Netflix without the disk using PSN+ for a month or so, and then that will be rolled out to everyone. You currently have to put the stupid red disk in your PS3 to use Netflix because of MS's exclusivity deal that is finally running out.

    --
    Clovis
    ^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
  51. Re:They can get away with it by pointing to Sony.. by theaceoffire · · Score: 1

    Also, I can buy stuff that is discounted on Playstation Plus and up to 5 of my friends can log onto my account on their PS3 and download it too, and play with me on their accounts.

    Seriously, the ability for me to buy a game and have my friends play with me has made me buy more stuff than I have ever bought from any game company.

    --
    I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
  52. enter StarCraft 2. by numbski · · Score: 1

    My nephew came to visit for the weekend a few weeks back and we were going to pick up a copy of StarCraft 2, spawn out a LAN game, and teach the kid the ropes. (Hadn't really followed the news on the game, shocking, I know.)

    No spawning out. No LAN games, everything routes out through Battle.net. So even if I *were* willing to drop $180 to teach a kid (myself, my wife, and my nephew) how to play StarCraft, and even though all three of us are on the same LAN segment (albeit, via wifi) - we would all have to NAT out to Battle.net, and deal with the lag of our DSL line.

    WTF?

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    1. Re:enter StarCraft 2. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Like I said above, "I'm not going to be playing PC games much longer if I'm not allowed to run my own server.."

      Recently, some high profile gaming event tried to showcase SC2. They ran into all sorts of issues, from authorization, to latency, to dead servers. It was an utter fail.

      Wtf?

      Either they need to come up with a lot of idiots to sell their product to, or they lose a lot of money. Me? I can't see paying $60 for each of their expansions when I can only play multi-player on their servers, with the douchebags that frequent the place. When the 3 races are in the "GoTY Edition" for $40, maybe I'll get it. But until that point, SC2 is off my list. If they allowed LAN play, or direct connections, it'd still be off my list until they games hit the $20 price-point. I'm past the impulse buying of $60 games. Either it's in my price range, or it's off my list. Bundle it with stupid server requirements, and it's totally off my list.

      The game scene is either going to get awesome as everyone demands this, or it's going to die as those of us who do refuse to compromise. I have my money on dying...

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor